HomeMy WebLinkAbout091195 PC Workshop AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
September II, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 5}2390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Ford
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Webster and Ford
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so membersof the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers a~e limited to three (3) mintIre8 each. If you desire to speak to
the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink *Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come fortyard and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Plsnning Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA94-0073, PA.94-0074, PAg,I-007S, and PA94-0076
GRC Development (Roripaugh Ranch)
East of Butterfield Stage Road, 1/2 mile north of Raneho California Road
A Workshop for the applicant to present the Roripaugh Ranch project to
the Planning Commission and receive direction from the Planning
Commission on the annexation of Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
proposing annexation of 630 acres and a Specific Plan consisting of 790
acres. The Specific Plan includes 2370 residential units, 11 acres of
commercial, 29 acres of schools, 19 acres of Neighborhood Parks, 68
acres of Community Park, 183 acres of open space, and 40 acres of
major roads.
Environmental Impact Report
Saied Naaseh
Provide Direction to Staff
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
City Council Workshop on Annexations September 19, 1995, 7 pm at the CRC
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meetings:
September 18, 1995 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
6 p.m. at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
September 11, 1995
Planning Application Nos.: PA94-0073, PA94-0074, PA94-0075, PA94-0076
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
Prepared By: Salad Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the applicant and staff.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
GRC Development
REPRESENTATIVE:
Keith Companies
PROPOSAL:
A Specific Plan consisting of 790 acres and an annexation
area of 630 acres. The Specific Plan includes 2365
residential units, 11 acres of commercial, 29 acres of
schools, 19 acres of neighborhood parks, 68 acres of
community park, 183 acres of open space, and 40 acres
of major roads.
LOCATION:
East of Butterfield Stage Road and 1/2 mile north of
Rancho California Road
SWAP:
Specific Plan/Rural Transitional Area with 2 dwelling units
per acre, 3 dwelling units per acre, and 1 acre and 5 acre
minimum lot sizes
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density, Hillside Residential, and Open Space
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 1995 the Planning Commission held a workshop to provide direction to staff and
the applicant regarding circulation and land use issues. The applicant has revised the Land
Use Map to address the Planning Commissions' and staffs' concerns. However, the revised
Land Use Plan contains the same number of dwelling units as the Land Use Plan that was
presented to Planning Commission at the first Workshop. This Staff Report contains a list of
concerns voiced by the Planning Commission at the previous workshop and whether, in staff's
opinion, the applicant has addressed the Planning Commission's concerns.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Specific Plan consisting of 790 acres. This includes a proposed
annexation of 630 acres. An additional of 160 acres is already located within the City Limits
which is refer to as the "panhandle". The Specific Plan includes 2365 residential units, 13
acres of commercial, 10 acres of schools, 15 acres. of neighborhood parks, 33 acres of
community park, 186 acres of natural open space, 25 flood control/open space, and 32 acres
of major roads~
ANALYSIS
At the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission Workshop, the Planning Commission gave the
applicant specific direction on land use and circulation issues. The Commission determined
that the density of the project was too high and the applicant needed to work with staff to
revise the Land Use Plan by being more sensitive to the environmental, topographical,
buffering, transitional, and lot sizes issues. The local street system has been eliminated by
the applicant to focus on land use issues. Staff agrees with this approach. The issues
regarding the local street system can be addressed by the design guidelines in the Specific
Ran.
The following provides a detailed discussion of the Planning Commission's concerns. Each
item is followed by staff's analysis of whether the issue has been addressed.
The maintenance of the 68 acre Community Park/Open Space/FIoodplain and all other
creeks needs to be determined. Is the maintenance the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association, TCSD, or Flood Control? Moreover, the parks need to be
centralized within the project. It must be demonstrated that the parks are usable areas.
The revised Land Use Plan separates the Community Park from the Flood Plain
and will be maintained by the City. The flood plain areas will be required
through the Conditions of Approval to be maintained by Riverside County Flood
Control District or the Homeowners Association. The applicant still needs to
demonstrate that all the park sites are flat, fully usable, and out of the flood
plain.
One neighborhood park has been added and others have been relocated to more
central locations.
The locations of the Elementary and Middle Schools are next to the commercial area,
floodplain, and major streets. These school sites need to be closer to residential areas
to promote walking and discourage busing. As indicated by the School District a high
school site is necessary within the French Valley. The School District needs to be
contacted to discuss these issues.
The elementary school site could be moved to a more central location. Better
pedestrian access to this school needs to be provided. The middle school site
has been eliminated. The possibility of providing a middle school and a high
school site still needs to be addressed with the school district.
R:',.STAFFRF~RORIPAUG.PC2 9F'//95 m~ ~
3. The uses for the commercial area at the bottom of the panhandle need to be examined
and may be restricted to office and restaurant uses,
The zoning section of the Specific Plan will address this point.
To mitigate the views from the surrounding areas, each lot should have five to six
trees.
The Specific Plan Design Guidelines will address this point and how it should
be implemented.
The Traffic Study needs to examine the changes to the General Plan Circulation
Element for termination of Nicolas Road on site, and elimination of Vino Way
connection and Leon Road. Moreover, the necessity of the connection to Calle
Contento and the off-site improvements to this road need to be examined. The off-site
road improvements need to be specified.
The Traffic Study will address these issues; however, it has not been submitted
to staff yet.
The habitat areas need to be examined and preserved where necessary. The Murrieta
Hot Springs alignment needs to be determined relative to Skunk Hollow.
The Land Use Plan avoids the most sensitive habitat areas. The EIR will further
address this issues and the Land Use Plan may have to be modified in
accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures in the EIR prior
to final approval of the Specific Plan.
The buffer areas need to be wider, and transitional lots need to be incorporated into the
Land Use Plan to buffer the adjoining estate lots. Minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square
feet should be provided. The proposed minimum 4000 square foot lots are not
acceptable. The loop street should be pulled back to increase buffering. The open
space along the eastern boundary need to be expanded to match that of Johnson
Ranch's and more buffering needs to be provided.
The buffer areas to the south and east have been enlarged by increasing the
depth of the estate lots (minimum 2 acre lot sizes) and adding a row of 14,000
square foot lots. The loop road has been pulled back to the west to provide
additional buffering to the land uses to the east of the project site. The
proposal does not have a 7200 square foot minimum lot size requirement and
4000 square foot lots are still proposed. The open space boundary has not
been increased to match that of Johnson Ranch along the eastern boundary.
The estate lots have been extended northerly to provide additional buffering of
the land uses to the east.
The loop road drew mixed feelings from the Planning Commission. In staff's opinion
the loop road is not appropriate and the traffic study needs to examine it.
The Traffic Study will address these issues; however, it has not been submitted
to staff yet.
R:XSTAFFRI>T~RORIPAUO,PC~ 9/7195 ~n 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
A grid system needs to be used to promote the traffic flow.
The specific Plan will contain language for the project to have · semi gdd
system and keep the number of cul-de-sacs to a minimum. A public road creek
crossing should be provided to connect the extreme lower portion of the project
to the middle section. This would improve traffic circulation.
More defined neighborhood areas need to be introduced. Plazas, neighborhood parks,
or other gathering places should be included within the design of the subdivisions.
Graphics and language needs to be added to the Specific Plan.
The relocation of the neighborhood parks help define the neighborhoods.
However, the parks need to be surrounded by local streets to further define this
concept. Selected locations within the open space areas may be used for
gathering places with a shade structure, benches, tables, drinking fountains,
and barbecue. The Specific Plan will contain language and graphics to require
these designs.
Clustering of commercial, neighborhood park, public use, and Elementary School
sites could form a Village Center. Language should be added to the Specific
Plan to promote development of these areas as a Village Center.
The density and the number of units need to be reduced. The Planning Commission
did not specify a density or maximum number of units. The applicant needs to
consider the rest of the Planning Commission's comments to reduce the development
area by being sensitive to the topography and the environmental constraints, and
reduce the number of units and the density by providing more buffering, transitioning
lot sizes and providing a larger mix of lots.
The applicant has not made any changes to the total number of dwelling units
or the density of the project since the City Council determined that the project
cannot exceed an average of 3 dwelling units per gross acres provided that they
meet physical and environmental constraints of the site. Moreover, the General
Plan provides for "Anticipated Uses" for this site which includes Medium
Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project does not include
products within this density range.
The buffer areas have been increased. The lot transition and lot sizes still need
to be examined.
The viability of the two separate commercial areas need to be demonstrated by
submitting a Market Feasibility Study.
The Feasibility Study will be submitted.
The development area needs to be made smaller by preserving the hillsides and
reducing the grading.
R:~,STAFFP, F~RORIPAUG.PC2 9/'//95 an 4
The development area has not been reduced by the applicant to preserve more
hillsides.
14. The steep topography on the residential area on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road
to the east of the Panhandle necessitates a more sensitive design than what is
proposed.
No changes are proposed.
15. Equestrian trails need to be incorporated into the design of the project.
The equestrian trails have not been provided.
16. Meetings with the neighbors should be set up to inform them about the project.
The minutes have not been submitted to staff.
Staff has the following concerns:
A public road is recommended adjacent to the open space areas to make this area
available to the community and not just the homes backing up to the open space.
More pedestrian connections are needed to provide shorter travel paths to destinations
such as schools, parks and commercial areas.
Residential units should front the park and not back up to them.
Minimum useable lot areas should be identified within the Specific Plan.
The Village Center concept should be introduced by gathering the commercial, public
use, neighborhood park, and elementary school.
Total number of units and the density of the project should be reduced.
Staff will support a General Plan Amendment for deletion of Calle Contento, Vine Way,
and Leon Road if supported by the Traffic Study.
The 3.1 acre park and the elementary school could be moved towards the interior of
the project along the loop road to provide an even more centralized location and pull
away the school site from the commercial site at the same time.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has attempted to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns;
however, the major issue of excessive number of dwelling units and density has not been
addressed. Staff recommends a continuance of this item until the applicant has made
substantial changes to the project and has reduced the number of dwelling units.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
R:',STAFF'RPT~RORIPAUG.PC2 9/7/95 m 5
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP Map
C. General Plan Land Use Map
D. Areawide Habitat Conservation Concept
E. Annexation Map
F. Specific Plan Map, Surrounding Uses
Planning Commission Staff Report, May 1, 1995 - Blue Page 8
R:',STAFI;'RF~RORIPAUG.PC2 9r'//95 sn 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFRPT~RORIPAUG.I~"2 9r7195 on 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
|
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFR/'T~RORI~AUG.I>C2 915195
CITY OF TEMECULA
25~1/2 AC
.~ '. M:I ',<',,
"t ITIOI'~
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
SWAP MAP
R:~TAFFP, F'~P, ORIPAUG.I~"2 9/5/95 m
CITY OF TEMECULA
L
./.~ RH
0 VL
LIJ
LM _1
l
L
,,,,,,,-
VL
·/"J LM/'~'VL"~
~-k. L._-'-
LM
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- C GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
R:~TAFFRPT',ROKII~AUG.FC2 9/5/95 an
CITY OF TEMECULA
WINCHESTER 7' , . ,,
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- D AREAWIDE HABITAT CONSERVATION CONCEPT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
R:~TAI~FRFI~ROR.I~AUG.I~'2 9/7195
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
ANNEXATION MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- F SPECIFIC PLAN MAP, SURROUNDING USES
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
R:'~TAFFRPT~ROP, I~AUG.PC2 9r'//95 m
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, MAY 1, 1995
R:\STAFFP, PT~RORIPAUG.PC2 9/"//95 sn 8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
May 1, 1995
Planning Application Noa.: P~A94~.073,.PA94-0074~ PA94-0075, PA94-0076
RoHpaugh Spedtic Plan
Prepared By: Salad Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the applicant and staff,
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
GRC Development
REPRESENTATIVE:
Keith Companies
PROPOSAL:
A Specific Plan consisting of 790 acres and an annexation
area of 630 acres. The Specific Plan includes 2365
residential units, 11 acres of commercial, 29 acres of
schools, 19 acres of Neighborhood Parks, 68 acres of
Community Park, 183 acres of open space, and 40 acres
of major roads.
LOCATION:
East of Butterfield Stage Road, 1/2 mile north of Rancho
California Road
SWAP:
Specific Plan/Rural Transitional Area with 2 dwelling units
per acre, 3 dwelling units per acre, and I acre and 5 acre
minimum lot sizes
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density, Hillside Residential, and Open Space
BACKGROUND
Planning Application Nos. PA94-0073, PA94-O074, PA94-O075, and PA94-0076 ware
formally submitted to the Planning Department on August 11, 1994. Staff requested a
clarification from City Council on the General Plan density allowed for the site. The Specific
Plan proposes a density of three (3) dwelling units per gross acres. Staff's feeling was that
the density approved in the General Plan was three (3) dwelling units per net acres. On
November 15, 1994 with a 3-2 vote, the City Council determined that the density was three
(3) dwelling units per gross acres which would allow for a maximum of 2370 dwelling units
for the project site. However, the General Plan requires the applicant to show that this density
is feasible given the physical and environmental constraints of the site.
R:~TA~ORJ~AUG.I~C 91~95 ¢e
After the density issue was resolved by the City Council, staff requested that the applicant
provide an environmental constraints map. Along with the preparation of this map, the
applicant revised the Land Use Plan to increase the open space area in the northeast of the
property. This environmental constraints map overlays topography, coastal sage scrub,
occupied Gnatcatcher habitat, occupied K-rat habitat, flood plain, blue line streams, faults, and
view opportunities. However, staff is not able to verify the accuracy of this map since the
~'!.i~,~ji~':!~jmie~el~j~lies such as biology, geology, traffic, hydrology, etc have not been submitted.
Therefore, the discussion for this Workshop is limited to general land use and circulation
issues. Staff is continuing to review the Specific Plan document.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a Specific Plan consisting of 790 acres. This includes a proposed
annexation of 630 acres. An additional of 160 acres is already located within the City Limits
which is refer to as the "panhandle". The Specific Ran includes 2365 residential units, 11
acres of commercial, 29 acres of schools, 19 acres of Neighborhood Parks, 68 acres of
Community Park, 183 acres of open space, and 40 acres of major roads.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project site is located to the south and west of the proposed Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan. The site has many constraints, including some steep topography over most of
the site, the Santa Gertrudis Creek and other tributaries traversing the site, and sensitive
biological habitat occupying the site. The property is surrounded by estate lots (2.5 to 5 acre
minimum lot sizes) with the exception of the areas adjacent to the proposed Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan and the Mountain View Specific Plan. The proposed gross density of the project
is 3 dwelling units per acre compared with the proposed Johnson Ranch's 2.75 dwelling units
per acre. The proposed circulation for the site is not in conformance with the General Plan and
a General Plan Amendment will be necessary in order for the project to be approved as
proposed.
Land Use
Located to the north of this site is a property known as Mountain View Specific Plan. Most
of the southern portion of the Mountain View Specific Ran adjacent to the site will have to
be preserved as open space for the preservation of Skunk Hollow, a sensitive habitat area
containing the Fairy Shrimp, an endangered species. It might be necessary to designate the
north side of the "panhandle" as open space to mitigate impacts to Skunk Hollow. Moreover,
most of the area adjacent to the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is open space. In
Staff's opinion, the open space along the eastern property line for this project should match
that of Johnson Ranch and should be extended south to the edge of the estate lots. The
proposed alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs on the north side of the site may traverse the
Skunk Hollow watershed. This may impact the circulation and land use maps for this project
by relocating the proposed alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The proposed open space
for this project is a continuation of the proposed Johnson Ranch open space. This open space
generally follows Santa Gertrudis Creek.
In Staff's opinion, the proposed estate lots along portions of the eastern and southern property
lines do not provide adequate buffering with the adjacent estate lots. This buffering should
be widened and should be changed to open space. Along the western property line, the
R:~ST/d;FRF~RORIPAUO.PC 916/95 cc 2
proposed residential, commercial and public institutional (school) land uses do not seem to be
compatible with the estate lots across Butterfield Stage Road. Given the nature of the
topography and the buffering issues, staff has serious concerns regarding the proposed
density.
In addition, the proposed commercial land uses need to be justified by the applicant by
providing a market analysis.
Park~
The Quimby requirement for this project is 30.7 acres. The project is proposing 19 acres of
neighborhood parks and a 68 acre community park/open space area along the Santa Gertrudis
Creek. A portion of the community park is within the flood plain and the applicant is
proposing a retention basin in this area. Two 10-15 acre areas can be used for active uses
and additional areas may be used as passive. The access to this park is limited and is mainly
provided by Nicolas Road. Pedestrian bridges will be required to increase the accessibility of
this park. Two neighborhood parks proposed in the "panhandle" have a blueline stream
running through them and one is 90 percent Costal Sage and is occupied by Gnatcatchers.
Therefore, the feasibility of both sites as park sites is questionable.
Circulation
The project's Conceptual Circulation Master Plan shows a realigned Nicolas Road which
terminates in a cul-de-sac and has eliminated both Vino Way and Leon Road. All planned
roadways and roadway sections needs to be consistent with the City's General Plan including
the alignment of Nicolas Road. Moreover, both Leon Road and Vino Way need to be shown
on the project's Conceptual Circulation Master Plan per the General Plan. The applicant should
coordinate the street improvements for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road
with the proposed Johnson Ranch and Mountain View Ranch developments and any proposed
Assessment District 161 improvements. The environmental impacts on Skunk Hollow need
to be considered when determining the alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. On-site
circulation issues will be further analyzed when more specific information is available.
The on-site and off-site project traffic impacts need to be further analyzed in the Traffic Study
and Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Study.
Hydroloqy
Santa Gertrudis Creek is the primary watercourse traversing the project. Four other USGS-
designated blueline streams also exist on the site and need to be identified in the Conceptual
Hydrology Plan. On-site retention facilities need to be utilized in the design of the Project and
also be shown on a Conceptual Hydrology Plan. The existing and proposed on-site conditions
as well as off-site flows and the use of on-site retention facilities need to be analyzed in the
Project's Hydrology Study.
Gradina
The conceptual grading exhibit shows that the project will require approximately 8.7 million
cubic yards of cut and 7.8 million cubic yards of fill. The proposed site grading reflects a
substantial amount of export, approximately 900,000 cubic yards. Further consideration
R:*~TAFFR. PT~RORI~AUG.I~C 916195 c.c 3
should be given to developing a balanced site.
Sewer and Water Facilities
Significant offsite backbone systems will be required to serve the project including paved
access subject to Eastern Municipal Water District's approval.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The General Plan allows a gross density of three dwelling units per gross acre for the site.
However, it also requires the project to be sensitive to the natural land forms and the natural
resources of the area. In staff's opinion, the proposed density for the project is too high for
the area. Buffering issues have not been adequately addressed. The commercial land uses
have not yet been justified by the applicant. The environmental and physical constraints of
the site require a reduction in the number of dwelling units and the density.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 5
B.
C.
D
E.
F.
G.
Vicinity Map
SWAP Map
General Plan Land Use Map
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Map
Areawide Habitat Conservation Concept
Annexation Map
Specific Plan Map, Surrounding Uses
R:\STAFFRPTXRORIPAUG.PC 9/6/95 cc 4
EXHIBITS
5
CITY OF TEMECULA
.
',/~,.. . -
- ..~,~.., ,, ~..
,,,.!-. ' .... .
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH,SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ".':M.~..,Y': 1, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. ~ RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995
SWAP MAP
R:\STA~O!{II*AUG-I~C 4/26/95 c~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- C GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
LAND USE SUMMARY
LAND USE ACREAGE
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- D RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
IB u C K
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- E AREAWIDE HABITAT CONSERVATION CONCEPT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995
ANNEXATION MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT- G SPECIFIC PLAN MAP, SURROUNDING USES
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 1, 1995